Where We Can Learn From Anarchists

Uber-wonk Reihan Salam links this week to a pamphlet, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, by radical academic David Graeber. I read it and found it most rewarding. If a “conservative” is someone who rather likes a particular institution and wishes to see it survive, then Graeber is precisely the opposite. That is, he does not like any particular institution and wishes to see them all destroyed. Consequently, though Graeber and conservatives have opposite goals, they share the same intellectual program: they both wish to understand how the United States, and the West more broadly, could be destroyed or else preserved.

It is interesting, then, that Graeber, a man who has spent a lifetime wondering how to obliterate Western institutions, comes up with this as the most effective technique:

Once during the protests before he World Economic Forum . . . I was invited to engage in radio debate with one of their representatives. As it happened the task went to another activist but I did get far enough to prepare a three point program that I think would have taken care of the problem [of global poverty] nicely:

An immediate amnesty on international debt . . .

An immediate cancellation of all patents and other intellectual property rights related to technology more than a year old

The elimination of all restrictions on global freedom of travel or residence.

The rest would pretty much take care of itself. The moment the average resident of Tanzania, or Laos, was no longer forbidden to relocate to Minneapolis or Rotterdam, the government of every rich and powerful country in the world would certainly decide nothing was more important than finding a way to make sure people in Tanzania or Laos preferred to stay there. Do you really think they couldn’t come up with something? The point is that despite the endless rhetoric about “complex, subtle, intractable issues” . . . the anarchist program would probable have resolved most of them in five or six years.

Now, there is much in this passage that is maddening. For one thing, it assumes that Western leaders could, if they wished, make Tanzania or Laos as nice a place as Holland (with the implication that only malice or greed explains why they have not done so already). Moreover, Graeber writes as if it were simply obvious that open borders would lead either to the collapse of the state or a radical global redistribution of wealth. But how? Graeber does not explain, so the reader is left to guess. Probably what Graeber, an anarchist, has in mind is that, with a truly massive and rapid influx of newcomers, they would overwhelm the natives to such an extent that the newcomers would no reason to respect to the formers’ institutions. To preserve those institutions, therefore, natives would have no choice but to bribe newcomers to stay away. Natives would have to pay a Danegeld or else accept an entirely new political order.

I do not wish to make too much Graeber’s pamphlet, which has much to disagree with. (For one thing, Graeber believes that political decisions are only legitimate when made unanimously, yet he recoils from proto-fascist anarchists such as Georges Sorel who developed techniques for making that unanimity a reality.) But he is surely correct that border controls are the sine qua non of the current order. Every non-anarchist must believe in minimal border controls. The only question is: what kind (and for whose benefit)?

Graeber and I were thinking of coming over, bringing a few people and having a barbeque on your front lawn this weekend, and knowing this should be incentive for you to work hard and earn enough to stock up your fridge by Friday. And don’t get too fancy with the beer, most of us neocons that feel what’s yours is ours, are bud-drinkers.

One and two are not utopian goof-offs, they’re good, practical ideas. The existence of Intellectual Property laws is an anachronism that chills wealth creation across the board, and does it’s worst damage in the pharmaceutical field.

I don’t think that one and two would make everything equal, as though that were even desirable, to say nothing of measurable, but they would be a good start, and would not involve any encroachment on private property or civil rights, properly understood.

Historically, “elimination of all restrictions on global freedom of travel or residence” has worked out quite well. Aside from providing little or no security, borders have also given governments more power to regulate free exchange. It doesn’t make sense to advocate borders while opposing big government.

This reminds me of an article summarizing the development of border restrictions and their correlation with state control. Written from an anarchist perspective: “Immigration: Anarchy Worked” http://c4ss.org/content/2337

Are we sure Graeber isn’t a ruling establishment plant among the anarchists? He’s an American, right? That immediate amnesty on international debt would be the perfect opportunity for the US government to stiff all its creditors and reestablish US economic dominance while smugly claiming the moral high ground. Many American businesses would benefit as well.

Is your characterization of Graeber as seeking to “obliterate Western institutions” based on an informed assessment, or just preconceptions about what “anarchism” means?

My take on Graeber is that he’s quite Kropotkinian, in that he seeks to preserve and expand lots of small-scale institutions presently crowded out by the giant corporation and centralized state. Most anarchists are quite friendly to the kind of institutions, based on self-organization and voluntary association, that would flourish without the corporate state. I would expect paleocons to, as well.

I’m an anarchist who finds much of value both in your magazine (my favorite, and I subscribe to some anarchist-themed periodicals) and Graeber. I’d be interested in your thoughts on another counter-institutional philosophy from somebody who’s much friendlier to paleo-conservatism: Butler Shaffer, who writes for lewrockwell.com. His book, Calculated Chaos, attacks the concept of institutions directly and greatly influenced me. I reviewed the book on my blog and recommend it highly as challenging, thought provoking stuff.

“Probably what Graeber, an anarchist, has in mind is that, with a truly massive and rapid influx of newcomers, they would overwhelm the natives to such an extent that the newcomers would no reason to respect to the formers’ institutions.”

I don’t think that’s what Graeber meant.

From the same pamphlet:
“the history of capitalism has been a series of attempts to solve the problem of worker mobility—hence the endless elaboration of institutions like indenture, slavery, coolie systems, contract workers, guest workers, innumerable forms of border control—since, if the system ever really came close to its own fantasy version of itself, in which workers were free to hire on and quit their work wherever and whenever they wanted, the entire system would collapse.”

How exactly in a constitutional setting could one limit techlogical intellectual property rights and retain those same rights for purely academic or cultural works. I may be self-servingly more conservative, or even reactionary and elitist, than libertarian on this particular matter, but in my opinion the wholesale abolition of intellectual property rights would deal a crippling blow to ‘high culture.’ I understand this is not an issue for many North Americans who call themselves conservatives today, but that is partly why I like to consider the conservative parts of my political beliefs to have a bit more in common with the Tories or or even the Junkers than today’s Republicans.

@Gladstone – I’m not sure what you are trying to salvage. as it stands, I think the growth of mp3 trading and such is a good example of what happens when you remove controls on the dissemination of non-tangible property. With a distribution system that puts little to no control on that free movement, the superstructure, record labels, distribution groups, and thelike, fall away. The music still exists, and it is still just as good as it was before, but now, the artists make a living by presenting the thing that the art really is – the individual. They make art in a way that can only be assessed in the most individualistic manner – through idiosyncratic live performance.

The free flow of information does not destroy art or High Culture, it just dissolves it down into the thing that is truly important – the delightful idiosyncrasies of the human individual. as it stands, you pay more for the medium then you do for the art.

Well I disagree with the redistribution of income. If there were completely open borders and an influx of newcomers came in with no respect for the ‘natives’ institutions, the natives – being well armed and patriotic Americans – would essentially have a huge collective, and unprofessionally militarized reaction. If America is worth its salt, and is a country still composed of tough men, then the tough would get going and simply expell theme out. It seems Graeber’s analysis comes from his own nanny statist psychology, where American’s are supposedly weak and dependent babies not capable of holding onto their society without the state – a view of developed westerners being essentially emasculated in comparison to the rough and ready third worlders. I think he should rethink his premises of manhood in American society – I believe it still exists.

I used to be a pretty involved anarchist but came to the conclusion as I got older that the majority of anarchists advocate big government ideas while opposing ALL government at all costs. I am speaking of those who call themselves Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, etc etc. For instance, most of them would balk at a conservative complaining of a welfare state but cannot explain how they would maintain these programs after their so-called revolution which would effectively wipe the State off the map. A true anarchist would at least have to be ok with capitalism (I know I am not telling you guys anything you don’t already know). That’s a big reason I left that movement; I felt like I was living a contradictory ideology.

For what it’s worth, Kevin is right: I like all sorts of institutions. In fact I support any institution that could be maintained without the systematic threat of bureaucratized violence. Which institutions people wish to maintain in a free society would of course be entirely up to them – it’s hard to imagine there wouldn’t be enclaves where people _wouldn’t_ like to play out Edwardian tea-party lives, though it would be hard to imagine that many people would want to volunteer to play the servants, at least, more than once or twice. So if you want to keep that up, you might have to rotate.

As for making Laos or Tanzania as nice as Holland – well that depends on what you mean. I’m saying it’s within our power to make Laos or Tanzania as nice as Holland for people who already come from Laos or Tanzania. Remember, if you’re Laotian, Laos has a lot of advantages over Holland. You already speak the language. All your relatives live there – which, for people who don’t live in alienated industrial colonies, is a plus, not a minus. It’s full of people with the same religious and/or philosophical beliefs and who know how to cook all the kinds of food you like best. It’s full of the kind of women or men you are used to finding most physically attractive. You like the music better, and your fellow Laotians share the same sense of humor, at least, a lot more than Dutch people do. Same with Tanzania for Tanzanians, etc. Given all that, you’d basically have to be in pretty bad shape to want to move to Holland (or of course you could be just a randomly adventurous or enterprising individual, those will always exist, but under ordinary situations, without massive global inequalities, there’d be just as many going the other direction in that case). So it’s just a matter of bringing things in Laos and Tanzania to the level where people who would ordinarily have every inclination to stay there would not feel compelled to leave anyway. I do think Western governments have the power to do that if they were really determined.

And incidentally, no, I’m not a big fan of intellectual property laws for my own works either – most of it I release free on the internet if I have any say in the matter anyway.

Oh and as for the guy who thinks capitalism would flourish without the state: when has that ever happened? I have yet to find any stateless society that developed anything even vaguely resembling wage labor. There’s a reason for that. People just don’t sign up as wage slaves if they have any other option and it would seem that – whatever you think _would_ or _should_ happen without a state, well, I’m an anthropologist and I know something about what actually happens – you need a state to create a situation where people feel compelled to act that way. But if you feel otherwise, sure. Fine with me. Let’s eliminate the state and see what happens. If we end up with a “free market” system where most people are hirelings of someone else, well, I’ll let you tell me that I was wrong.
David

Wow, Graeber is simply advocating free trade. If free trade is beneficial, then free immigration benefits labor (ie poor people), just as free trade of goods or capital benefits the wealthy. One thing dumb-ass pseudo libertarians don’t understand is that free immigration is not the equivalent of someone camping in your yard. Immigrants pay rent, buy property, and work jobs freely offered by employers. Nationalists just don’t like it because of the race and class of the immigrants.

Intellectual property rights, same thing, just government control to stifle free innovation, benefit those with a head start on wealth, rather than let creativity run free and create the best products for everyone.

Cancellation on international debt? Most of this was garnered by dictators before the current populace of developing countries was born. Simply taxation without representation, albeit it goes to the first world bankers instead of a king.

Graeber hardly challenged basic social structures, just the inconsistently applied ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ in the First World. Freedom for the rich, segregation and sharecropping for the poor.